The Medium is the Messenger

Comments


Well I have been saying for years that both you seth, and mark, evaluate the messenger first, the path the messenger has traveled next, and the actual content of the message last, in both importance and in time sequence.

So are you not being rather hypocritical saying “don’t kill the messinger”? That’s your usual mode. You kill all messengers who won’t enter exclusively through the designated front door of your box and give the correct handshake and password. Sad, but true.

#GWLegacy 

i evaluate all … the message, the messenger, the medium, and how it got to me, as well as how i #listened to it.  All are important.  The more i am aware of all of those aspects, the better for me to rationally form an intent in regards to a potential response.

None of that did i get from #GW … i don’t remember him dealing in that kind of matter at all.
To get your accusitorial message across to me, you will need to put more meat on the bones (more evidence) …
an unsubstantiated allegation out of your mouth is #inform’ing me not. 

#btw, i am curious how you arrived at your #alligation here … to me it out of the blue, unconnected to any of our other thoughts.  Obviously i grew up under #GW and have absorbed much of his #GWLegacy as have we all under our parents and the culture in which they themselves grew up.  But why are you singling out this particular thing that you seem to imagine we could have learned differently ? 

Are you suggesting that every message is best digested upon it’s face value alone?

It’s just something I noticed a long time ago and re-observe often. I first noticed it with Mark because he is hair-trigger in this regard … but you Seth have it a lot too … and I have traced it back to the general beliefs #GW imparted to his followers (and children) as all of those that I know of exhibit it and I was able to observe it strongly in #GW himself in that year I had contact with him before he died.

Not rocket science here. Just an obvious observation of something all of #GW’s influencies have in common that I rarely find elsewhere in society. So I lump it under the #GWLegacy for easy categorizing.

You did not really answer my question …

upon what evidence … what examples … do you conclude that
the way we analize messages comes from #GWLegacy ?

… whereas my own recollection of how i formed those comprehension tools came to me after i left the family?

How do you analize messages yourself?  Do you usually take them on face value?  
For example, if a used car salesman tells you that a car is worth $4000 do you believe
his message about the car’s value?

The details are not worth talking about. This is an issue that has parts on both sides of the barrier of the box you are living in. You absolutely will not under any circumstances entertain facts on the other side of the boundaries of your box. You have proved that time and time again. You always reframe them or devalue them. You always left turn. I have no interest in that kind of interaction. It’s one sided, yours.

obviously i have learned to observe many aspects of the information to which i listen. 
so what?

i have no idea what you are talking about. 
it appears to me you are rambling on about something only in your head,
which has nothing to do with me.

it appears to me you are rambling on about something only in your head

Exactly what you say about everything outside your box. You do acknowledge that there may be a bigger reality out there … but you have stated quite clearly that you have no desire to interact with it at all. You even re-asserted that yesterday.

I live in that bigger world. I participate in it. I include all the aspects of it in my thoughts and decisions. I fully interact with that bigger world in every way in my every day experiences. I have no desire to draw an artificial line around a subset of what I know and work with and experience. Your assertion that you can make everything I experience work inside your box is quite false. Whenever you do that you simply create Frankenstein like elements that are pieced together with the real parts that are outside your box simply missing. Those patchwork elements may work for you, but they don’t work for me. I see and am fully aware of the missing parts.

Not my game, dA…… maybe or not you recognize it because it is yours? Maybe (or NOT) you just #MakeShitUp null

i don’t know mark … i will need to read “The Medium is the Messenger (comment 75958)” very carefully … but a cursory reading yields my thought  that nathan thinks that the patterns inside his head over there are “outside in the world” to us over here, even thought he refuses to express them in any detail. 

I express them constantly seth. You ignore them constantly. You are confusing your own left turns with lack of content. Try not turning, you will run right into the content.

”Not my game, dA”  Cool.

… the rest is just one of your shittings.

well clearly one of us is confused null

if i have a choice of my perceptions,
or sombody else’s vague self serving impressions about me,
offered up upon their own authority,
guess whose #perceptions i will believe?

What would you do in my shoes? honestly!

In your shoes I would make every possible effort I could to have the impressions the other person is describing themselves having. That is what I do do. That is how my own box is constantly expanding.

Most people do this. I can go out on the street and and start talking to just about anyone about #LOA and YES and reality mirrors and all the other things I commonly talk about and the large majority of them get interested and start finding representations for the things I talk about their experience even if they never heard of anything I am talking about before. They try to expand their perceptions and usually succeed. Most people may have boxes, as you have said, but they are very flexible boxes with cardboard borders.

You and Mark have fixed boxes made of steel. They don’t flex. Neither of you try and have the experiences others are having. Neither of you try and represent things the way someone else is representing things. You both stay put in your own ways of representing and your own unbudgeable beliefs. Both of you at various times have expressed fears of being influenced by others, of being indoctrinated into cults, of being called crazy, if you were to try and have the experience someone else was having. This is all part of the #GWLegacy. #GW had the same beliefs and inflexible box and inability to go out and experience what others were experiencing without his own personal censorship. Most people are simply not like that at all. Most people flex and actually enjoy trying out the experiences others are having. Most people don’t fear becoming something new and don’t think they are going to become controlled by others if they do try new ways of experiencing reality. A few do, but not most. In fact, both the current drug craze and the current virtual reality craze are all about getting out of one’s own experience and having an alternate one.  


it is so very strange … your first two paragraphs are true …

then you start to #MakeShitUp about me and mark … even lumping us in the same bag. 

My own experience is that mark is fairly inflexible, i am very flexible, and you are somewhere in between null

But speaking for myself i almost always try to #listen carefully to others and even #empathy’tically try to crawl in their skin to understand what they are feeling.  That is a great thing for everybody to do,  and i have even touted it here myself … strange that you did not hear it.

Fear of being influenced by others … null … i will need to think about that one #sethhmmm 

Most people don’t fear becoming something new and
don’t think they are going to become controlled by others
if they do try new ways of experiencing reality.

nathan
i think ...
in my early years i did hanker to wanting to hang with my constant continuity …but
in my later years,
since i am new every day null (← something of which you know nothing)
i go with that with zest,
even trying to leverage it to see in #stereo null

Now sorry null,  #piss on that as you will, for your own null love of yourself.

tag #binoculardialogue

You are talking about a different aspect of flexibility.

I am talking about “What would you do in my shoes? honestly!” ~ Seth

I would do something quite different that you do, and so do most.


Well … re “The Medium is the Messenger (comment 75966)” …
why would i crawl into the skin of somebody thinking evil destructive shit about me?

maybe a #masochist would do that … or myabe a #AssKisser … but certainly not “most people”.

I really do not know what you are running here …
but it sure feels like #VooDoo to me.

… additionally, I directly experience the general flexibility of most people’s boxes, and the solid inflexibility of both you and Marks. In this area, the flexibility of your boxes, you appear both about the same from out here. You have other things you are much more flexible than Mark is, but not in the walls of your boxes. You guys are not the only people I talk to. Not by a long shot. You two are the most inflexible I talk to, by orders of magnitude. Both of you do not budge. Both of you stay solid in your own perceptions no matter what or how much you might gain by trying out a different set of perceptons. You figure out why that is … then I won’t have to guess.

Nothing evil or destructive happening anywhere. And nothing even hinted at it here in these dialogs. Where does THAT fear come from?

not a fear … a fact … you say i am inflexible … you just said it again …. that is #HorseShit !!!

That is just something that you are running in your own mind
It has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

It’s an observation. You don’t flex. You stay in the same box. You never expand out of it to see what it could be like to be having the experiences others say they are having.

You say you did once, a long time ago, using drugs … and then you just stopped.

hey, keep doing it !   

me, i have something better to do.

I know. Left turns!  

Gotta stay on that NASCAR track and get your Lapps in!  

incidentally, what you really mean, imho …
is that i don’t flex the way you think i should …
or try to will that i would.

That, of course, is your judgement
and is all about you
again, nothing to do with me.

… and your rediculous #VooDoo above is to be ignored null

You don’t flex the way normal everyday humans do. That is what I mean. When someone presents a new or alternate way to experience reality, me or anyone else, you stay put, exactly in the same territory you have been in for many many years now.

You “think outside the box” and perhaps that is what you mean when you say you are flexible. But you don’t “go outside the box” like most people do quite easily.

well maybe you should say that 100 more times more null
meditate on it
then you will find that the truer it will become to you.
nevertheless
it has nothing to do with me.


^^^^^^^^^^ box ^^^^^^^^^^

I am just as free and flexible as i am. 
But i am not absolutely flexible,
i am not absolutely free,
for then i would be irrelevant,
to anything but myself.

seth
 
#Freedom

this also can relate to “Socretes Cafe Tuesday April 18 2017 (comment 75979)” …
And yes i know it is popular to discard logic …
to go beyond it as it were … i like doing that too …
but not to the point of confusion where identity dissolves into stupidity and vagaree,
where thoughts are so free as to be just whatever floats in and titilates,
and have no practical relationship to  action or consequence.
seth
 
… so yes logic and rationality and
a strong sense of identity,
not just my own, ...
IS
a box which i do not glory in leaving ...
for outside that box is a personal #LalaLand
… which can not be #shared with others.
 

”which can not be #shared with others.” ~ Seth

Not true. Outside that exact box is where actual sharing with others is to be found. Inside that box is where you are only sharing with your representation of others. Looks like real sharing when you are only receiving perceptions on sensory channels, and is seen for what it really is, only a reflection of sharing, when you open up the rest of your perception to the whole #CycleOfDoing.


i will need to think about that one … #sethhmm abandon reason to encounter the #world null


#LOL … of course.

Not the first time those words, or a thousand variations of them, have been said either.  

Reason, binary thinking, whatever one calls it, can only go so far. It is the boundary at the edge of the known universe. In truth, it is the reflective surface of the reality mirror itself!  

You seem to forget this part …
“which can not be #shared with others”.
… which is universally true.  

It is those outside connections which i accept when i restrain myself to being rational. 
It is not, as you protray it, “where I am only sharing with my representation of others”.
You switched it around.

In the #CycleOfDoing, true sharing with others comes in at the 6 oclock position.

What is coming in at the 12 oclock position is reflected sharing. Our own representation of the sharing as seen through our own senses after our will acted upon it.
 

”You switched it around.” ~ Seth

Yes, I switched it around because it IS around … 180 degrees around, as I say above. That is where the real sharing is happening. You are only seeing your representation of the sharing after your will has acted upon it through your senses.  

True sharing is much much richer and more satisfying than what comes in at 12 oclock.  

In fact, that is why we have so many poems and plays and stories of seeking for sharing, seeking for true love, seeking for companionship and completion … exactly because we usually seek for those at 12 oclock … inside our own representation, in our sensory input only.

When we seek at 6 oclock … we find, and are satisfied deliciously!